Movie: King Arthur (Big Spoiler Warning)

Remove all ads!

First of all: as the title says, I want to give those that have seen the movie a chance to post their thoughts, and if you haven't seen it yet, but plan to, you'll be sorry if you read on after this...


OKAY then - here we go
I went to see this movie last night, and I really enjoyed it. The way they'd put Arthur down as a roman cavalry commander, they way they circumvented the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot issue, Lancelot as dual-wielding swordmaster, Guinevere as a celtic warrior princess, the clever way they cut all magic out of the saga without losing it's mystic nature, Brilliance.
It was, of course, a rather cliché movie, but it had a few nice twists, it's cool how they (supposedly) show the historic setting, rather than the mythical, making Arthur and his knights more real, while maintaining the heroism.
On the whole, do not expect a classic King Arthur movie, as it's not, and I spend half the evening waiting for the movie waiting for the plot to become more familiar.
Hmm I find that I lack inspiration, early on the morning. If I feel like it, I'll edit this later to finish it up.
In the meantime, everyone please post their thoughts.
(Also, how long has this movie been on display or when is it scheduled for release where you are? If not obvious from your location, please add in that location.)

 

I saw it some months ago and I really enjoyed it (may have been because I'm a fan of Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy - But I would have enjoyed the film regardless, I would think).

At first, I was slightly irritated that the knights were Sarmation, rather than Britons, but I even liked that after a while.

 

I would have far prefered a mythic version, instead of them simply ignoring the plot and doing whatever they felt like, then slapping 'realistic' into the hype. It was nice, but it could have been a hell of a lot better.

 

I didn't particularly like it... I guess I was comparing it to Troy without knowing it or something like that.

 

Actually, I haven't seen it yet - been too busy to go to movies the last few months - and from what I can see in your "big" spoiler, it's going to be just what I'm expecting - a more historical Lawhead-esque take on the Arthurian saga. Something a bit more... realistic, shall we say?

(Stephen Lawhead is a writer of Historical Fiction, also responsible for the Pendragon Cycle - a kind of Historical Fantasy that, while being more realistically historical, doesn't leave out the more magical/mystical aspects of Arthurian legend - it really has some interesting takes on a very familiar story - I recommend it - at the very least, the first three books!)

 

Yeah, they should have kept some sort of cool magic casting in the movie...the magic comming from Tim the Enchanter in 'Monty Python and the Holly Grail' was better than whats in King Arthur. But I think the extreme "hotness" of Keira Knightly make up for anything missing in the film.

 

I also think there should've been magic in the movie. All in all though I think the movie was good, albeit strange.

It was like the basis for the big war and combat took 80% of the movie, and the actual war happened like snap in one single battle. It was uneven to say the least, pretty much ending the movie so suddenly that I was left with the "was that it?" feeling. As I said though, the movie was strange. There were some bland scenes, and the fighting scenes were incredibly unrealistic. As well, the advancement of the plot, most emphasized by the sudden lame ending I just mentioned, wasn't exactly top-notch.

But even with all this, the characters felt awesome. I can't really say why, but this is the first group of knights / adventurers in a while that I must say I feel for. Somehow the looks and personalities seemed so realistic compared to the rather mundane groupies from other movies. Dagonet was awesome! Also, I liked the looks of the movie, and the soundtrack was pretty good too.

Above all though, I liked the lead actor, playing Arthur. In trailers he seemed a strange choise indeed. Not the usual charismatic leader. A rather common looking, none too muscular bland casual man. Not with a terribly charismatic voice either. But he worked in the movie. Somehow he seemed a very human leader. Not one of those movie heroes you usually see. And his performance was good too.

As I said, a strange movie. With some seriously bad things in it, yet some surprisingly good things to balance it all off. Definitely worth watching.

 

I thought the guy playing Arthur was awful myself. He had all the personality of a stick.

 

Mister "personality of a stick" is the next James Bond in the film "The Man With The Red Tattoo". If this is merrited or not I don't know.

Othervise my main pain was the villain. Stellan Skarsgård is a fine actor in my opinion, but I would've imagined a more charismatic and boisterous villain. Stellan Skarsgård wisphered, and he, sadly, only killed one underling who challenged his authority. Not the Ultimate Bad Guy in my book. A hero is only as great, as the bad guy is bad.

 

Haven't watched it yet but if I saw the previews right it looks like Guinevere is played by the same actress as the chick in Pirates of the Carribean.

So overall you would say it is worth watching?

 

Keira Knightley played Guinevere in Arthur, and Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Carribean.

 

bah! she looks like a guy in king arthur but she WAS hot in pirates. in a corset hehe.